Aggregation of Multiple Deposits Determines Threshold for Mandatory Succession Certificate under RBI Claim Settlement Guidelines.

The Petitioner is the widow of Abhiram Dash, who died intestate on January 12, 2025, leaving behind his wife, three daughters, and one son.

The deceased held three Fixed Deposits (FDs) totaling ₹36,56,313.62 (which grew to ₹37,30,606.06 by May 2025).

Although all legal heirs executed claim forms and indemnity affidavits in favor of the Petitioner, the Bank (Opposite Parties 2 & 3) insisted on a succession certificate or letter of administration via a letter dated May 27, 2025.

The Petitioner’s grievance was rejected by the RBI Ombudsman on October 22, 2025.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking the release of funds without a succession certificate, arguing that each FD should be treated individually as being below the ₹15 lakh threshold limit.

1. Whether multiple fixed deposits held by a deceased depositor should be aggregated or treated individually for the purpose of defining the "threshold limit" under RBI guidelines for simplified claim settlement.

2. Whether the Bank's insistence on a succession certificate for claims exceeding the threshold limit is legally sustainable when all legal heirs have consented to the payment via indemnity bonds.

RBI Guidelines dated September 26, 2025, specifically Clause 10, which mandates a simplified procedure for claims below a "threshold limit" (defined as ₹15 lakhs for non-cooperative banks) and prescribes stricter documentation, including a Succession Certificate or Legal Heir Certificate with a third-party surety bond, for claims above the limit.

Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, regarding restrictions on succession certificates.

Distinction of the precedent in Jhunu Choudhury v. Zonal Manager, Bank of India, where the claim was specifically found to be below the prescribed threshold.

The court reasoned that the total claim amount (₹37,30,606.06) significantly exceeded the ₹15 lakh threshold limit defined in Clause 7(h) of the RBI Guidelines.

It rejected the Petitioner's argument for individual treatment of each FD, noting that the Petitioner applied for all deposits jointly through a consolidated claim, making the segregation of amounts impermissible.

Under Clause 10(b), when a claim exceeds the threshold, the Bank has the discretion to demand a succession certificate to ensure the safety of the settlement procedure.

The court found the Bank's procedure to be a safeguard for the interests of all legal representatives and not against public policy.

Furthermore, the court noted a technical defect: the Petitioner failed to challenge the specific order of the RBI Ombudsman.

The court held that the Bank's insistence on a succession certificate was neither illegal nor unreasonable given the substantial amount involved and the presence of multiple legal heirs, and the Writ Petition was dismissed as being without merit.